Copyright for Phobos to D Foundation

[Seb via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 28 May 2016 at 18:39:20 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling 
wrote:
> On Saturday, 28 May 2016 at 18:30:03 UTC, Seb wrote:
>> On Saturday, 28 May 2016 at 18:11:16 UTC, Joseph Rushton 
>> Wakeling wrote:
>>> Copyright is extremely under-reported for Phobos, in my 
>>> experience -- authors of significant components of modules do 
>>> not necessarily add their name to the copyright list or even 
>>> the author list.
>>
>> Yes that's a huge problem. I tried to tackle this with this
>>
>> https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/1307
>>
>> It's currently pending, so make noise if you find this useful 
>> too ;-)
>
> Er ... not that I wish to dampen your enthusiasm, but don't you 
> have another project to be working on? ;-)
> Specifically on that PR: I think it's problematic to try 
> auto-adding all contributors to modules, because author (and 
> copyright) credits should generally be given for _significant_ 
> contributions -- authoring functions and data structures, etc. 
> -- not for minor tweaks and fixes.

Oh this wasn't thought to conflict with the (often not-updated) 
authors list which is displayed at the top of the page. It was 
just an attempt to give people
(small) credits and motivation.
Btw how about moving this part of the conversation to the PR?

> Historically with Phobos, I think there's an extent to which 
> adding one's name to the author list was also taken as an 
> indication of being willing to take some level of active 
> maintenance duty for its contents.  (I don't personally agree 
> with that idea, but it was mentioned to me at a point where I 
> was adding my name to the authors list of a module.)

I agree - there should be a separate maintainer(s) field which 
are be in charge of merging PRs to the module and can be 
contacted for questions.
It seems to me that this is already the case for many modules, 
but more on an informal, not documented basis.
However I guess having fixed maintainer(s) is too rigid for an 
open source project, but it would be a great change which also 
might help to tackle the PR bottleneck problem.